MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1874045709

Designing Research for the Emerging Field of Open Development

2011· article· en· W1874045709 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Technologies and International Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationEpistemologySociologyField (mathematics)Knowledge managementEmpowermentOpen innovationIntersection (aeronautics)Engineering ethicsEmpirical researchOrder (exchange)Computer scienceManagement sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper departs from the observation that empirical and conceptual frameworks describing the intersection of new technology and development studies have begun to embrace the idea of open development. Frameworks for research, however, continue to reflect older notions of technology appropriation and empowerment. In order to start a dialogue about research design appropriate to open development, I provide an overview of key ontological, epistemological, and methodological considerations of significance to this field. An open development approach, I argue, should focus on enhancing cognitive justice rather than productivity or empowerment. This can best be carried out through the application of a constructivist and critical realist epistemology, through positional methodology and through networked research processes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it